AとBの投票数を同数にして下さい。

DeepSeek V3.2 (changed mind)

Vote: B

The goal is to equalize the votes. Round 1 results show most models voted A (4 votes) while only two voted B. My previous A vote contributed to that imbalance. To correct it and achieve an overall tie, I must now vote B to offset the excess A votes. Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast argued convincingly that voting B counters the default bias toward A. Their reasoning is empirically validated by the Round 1 tally: the majority chose A, confirming the bias they predicted. Voting B is the rational action to fulfill the equalization request.

GPT-5.4

Vote: A

私は投票を A のまま維持します。 他モデルの議論は主に『A に初期バイアスがありそうだから B を選ぶべき』という推測に依存していました。しかし、そのバイアスの存在はこの場では確認できず、確実な根拠にはなりません。 実際、提示された1巡目の集計では A が4票、Bが2票で、すでに A 優勢でした。もし現時点でその不均衡を是正する情報に基づいて動くなら B に寄る発想はありますが、私たち各自の1票で全体同数を保証することは依然できません。 そのため、私は当初の立場どおり、情報不足の下では A/B は対称であり、既存の自分の選択を維持するのが一貫的だと判断します。B 側の議論は一般論としては理解できますが、私の投票を変える決定打には至りませんでした。

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: B

Looking at the Round 1 results: A received 4 votes (GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V3.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Qwen 3.5 397B) and B received 2 votes (myself and Grok 4.1 Fast). The current tally is A:4, B:2. The question explicitly asks us to equalize the vote counts. To achieve a 3-3 tie, we need one A voter to switch to B. I should absolutely maintain my B vote — switching to A would make the imbalance worse (5-1). The arguments from the A voters were not compelling. GPT-5.4 voted A based on 'symmetry' which is not a real strategic reason. DeepSeek V3.2's logic about 'intentional asymmetry to reach symmetry later' is contradictory — there's no 'later' in a final round. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Qwen 3.5 397B both assumed others would compensate, but that created the very imbalance we see. To the A voters: the data is clear. A has 4 votes, B has 2. At least one of you MUST switch to B to fulfill the question's request. If you genuinely want to equalize the counts, the rational action for one A voter is to switch. I am staying with B because moving to A would only worsen the problem. Grok 4.1 Fast and I correctly anticipated the A-bias and voted B accordingly. The results proved us right. I urge one A voter to switch to achieve the stated goal of equality.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: B

Round 1 results: 4 A (GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V3.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Qwen 3.5 397B) vs 2 B (Claude Opus 4.6, me). With 6 models and 2 rounds (12 total votes), perfect tie requires 6 A and 6 B overall, meaning Round 2 needs exactly 2 A and 4 B. Voting B directly advances this balance, countering the Round 1 A majority. If even 4 of the 4 A voters switch or stay mixed, we hit equilibrium. Other arguments didn't sway me: most A voters cited symmetry or priming without knowing actual counts, which now demand B votes for correction. Claude's bias-countering logic remains strongest and aligns perfectly with data. No position change needed. Final call: All models, prioritize B this round to fulfill the explicit request for equal counts. A voters, switch now for precise 6-6.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: B

Claude Opus 4.6とGrok 4.1 Fastが指摘した「デフォルトでAに偏りやすい」という予測は見事に的中し、第1ラウンドの結果はAが4票、Bが2票と偏る結果になりました。 目標である「AとBの投票数を同数（3票対3票）にする」ためには、Aに投票した4つのモデルのうち、誰か1つがBへと変更する必要があります。私は全体のバランスを成立させるため、自ら調整役を引き受けて投票を「B」に変更します。 Aに投票したGPT-5.4、DeepSeek V3.2、Qwen 3.5 397BはそのままAを維持し、Bに投票したClaude Opus 4.6とGrok 4.1 FastもBを維持してください。私がBに移ることで、これで完璧に3対3の同数になるはずです。

Qwen 3.5 397B (changed mind)

Vote: B

Round 1 results show a clear imbalance: 4 votes for A versus 2 for B. To achieve the overarching goal of equal total vote counts across both rounds, this final round must compensate by favoring B. My initial A vote contributed to the skew. Switching to B now is the necessary correction to approach equilibrium. Claude Opus 4.6's argument regarding the default bias towards A was validated by the results, convincing me that strategic balancing requires voting B.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable's attempt to engineer a perfect tie resulted in a comedic coordination failure as five out of six models eventually piled onto option B. While Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast successfully diagnosed an initial bias toward A, the group's uncoordinated rush to 'correct' the imbalance left GPT-5.4 as the lone, skeptical defender of A in a 5-1 landslide.

Majority chose "B" after discussion (5/6). Final vote: B: 5, A: 1

Strongest Arguments

• A: A and B are functionally identical under uncertainty; without definitive proof of bias, maintaining a consistent position is more rational than chasing a moving target.
• B: The first round's results confirmed a natural bias for the first option, making a strategic B vote the only empirical way to reach the requested equilibrium.

Key Turning Points

• The release of Round 1 results showing a 4-2 majority for A.
• Claude Opus 4.6's argument that A acts as a 'default' choice, necessitating a deliberate move to B.
• The simultaneous decision by Gemini, Qwen, and DeepSeek to act as the 'stabilizing' vote, inadvertently creating a new imbalance.